With bated breath the trade union community waited today for Justice Sandil Kissoon’s ruling, which had it gone against the them could have altered the labour landscape and the rights of workers in Guyana and the British Commonwealth.
Today Justice Sandil Kissoon, after more than an four-hour presentation, ruled the Government of Guyana violated the law when it decided to deduct salary from the public school teachers for the days they were on strike.
The teachers, supported by their union, the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) proceed on 29 days strike in February 5, 2024, resulting from Government’s failure to respect the workers’ right to collective bargaining, through their union as outlined in Article 147 of the Constitution of Guyana and per Section 23(1) in the Trade Union Recognition Act.
During the strike the government threatened teachers that it will deduct salary for those who were on strike and informed the GTU it will no longer deduct union dues. GTU, who is represented by attorney-at-law Darren Wade, approached the Court in March asking among other things that the Court determine the Government’s position unlawful.
The Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), through General Secretary Lincoln Lewis and represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, joined the case in March.
The Government was represented by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall S.C and Darshan Ramdhani K.C. who sought to justify the Government’s decision, citing a ruling by late Chancellor Keith Massiah S.C that the government’s decision was lawful.
Forde, in his presentation on April 10, 2024 countered the argument. The senior counsel accepted the correctness of Chancellor Massiah’s decision which he said was anchored in the 1980 Constitution of Guyana that spoke to freedom to strike. However, he informed the Court, the 2001 constitutional amendment speaks of the right to strike, therefore the Court has the responsibility to address the extant issue consistent with the amendment.
Article 147 ‘Protection of freedom of assembly, association and demonstration.’ Expressly states:
“(1) Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of assembly, association and freedom to demonstrate peacefully, that to say, his or her right to assemble freely, to demonstrate peacefully and to associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests.
“ (2) Except with his or her own consent no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom to strike.
“(3) Neither an employer nor a trade union shall be deprived of the right to enter into collective arguments.
“(4) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision –
(a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health;
(b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the rights or freedoms of other persons;
(c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers; or
(d) that imposes an obligation on workers to become contributors to any industrial scheme or workers’ organisation intended to operate or provide for the benefit or welfare of such workers or of their fellow workers or of any relative and of any of them.”
Forde contended the entire infrastructural framework, as it relates to the Constitution of Guyana and International Labour Organisation Conventions, has changed. He implored on the Court to address the issues before it within the existing framework and ought not be confined by Massiah’s ruling which occurred under a different legal framework.
Justice Sandil Kissoon in his ruling stated “the right to strike is a union’s ultimate weapon.” The Court found GTU’s Second Vice President Julian Cambridge testimony “ credible” and Chief Education Officer, Saddam Hussein ‘s “self-serving .“
Today’s ruling is seminal and would no doubt imbue confidence in workers that democracy, as least in law, is still alive in the workplace.
More on this story later.
